That comment was made before the user discovered the magnify function did indeed work with manual focus lenses.
Not that I disagree - the EVF doesn't have sufficient resolution and the system so far lacks focus peaking. You'd expect focus to be more of a challenge on this camera.
The Chinese discussion dwells too much on colour shift and not on edge detail retention. Hopefully we'll see some useful images soon...
Edit: Flickr images aren't very helpful. The 50mm @f/2.8 is out of focus or has motion blur, probably the latter given it was taken at ISO 800 1/30th of a second. The shot done at ISO 3200 is better from a blur perspective but it looks like the edges suffer from lens softness we see on cameras with AA filters. Given it was shot at f/11 you'd expect those edges to be crisper, if the possibility exists.
michaelwatkins wrote:
That comment was made before the user discovered the magnify function did indeed work with manual focus lenses.
Not that I disagree - the EVF doesn't have sufficient resolution and the system so far lacks focus peaking. You'd expect focus to be more of a challenge on this camera.
The Chinese discussion dwells too much on colour shift and not on edge detail retention. Hopefully we'll see some useful images soon...
Strange how slow M adapter samples have been to show up in that Chinese thread since it was posted a week ago here.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Probably also before he actually used wide rangefinder lenses on the NEX-7.
You are no doubt right about that.
Not only are both sets focus-impaired, but one of the gents appears to own a cat and there isn't even a cat photo in his series. No EV+2 even white target shots, no brick walls, and no cats. Unforgivable!
I figured I might have missed something over the last week. So have we seen any useful examples of RF lenses shot on this camera yet?
I'm hoping to see a useful series that fully explores how the camera handles lenses just like mine of course... without be having to buy the camera! I'd like someone else to take the depreciation hit.
michaelwatkins wrote:
You are no doubt right about that.
Not only are both sets focus-impaired, but one of the gents appears to own a cat and there isn't even a cat photo in his series. No EV+2 even white target shots, no brick walls, and no cats. Unforgivable!
I figured I might have missed something over the last week. So have we seen any useful examples of RF lenses shot on this camera yet?
I'm hoping to see a useful series that fully explores how the camera handles lenses just like mine of course... without be having to buy the camera! I'd like someone else to take the depreciation hit. ...Show more →
It's quite amazing how polarized all of the X-PRO 1 reviews are. One wonders if the various reviewers were even using the same damn camera. The EOS HD review above seems to be in the camp that found the X-PRO 1 to feel a bit cheap:
"To be honest, build quality feels a notch down from the Fuji X100 and shares more with the cheaper X10 compact but that is certainly not to say it’s bad."
No doubt the EOS HD guy would like the feel of the XP1 (take that Ilford!) if a nice metal lens with brass helicoid were mounted up front.
Speaking of camera naming, I feel a need to vent here.
The XP1 (man I wish Ilford didn't have a lock on that short form but maybe Fujifilm could appropriate it now)... er the X-Pro 1 generates more hate because of its nomenclature. By that I mean people are predisposed to hating the X-Pro 1 simply because it takes more awkward keystrokes to type out.
GXR is easy but they shouldn't get a pass simply because there's only ever been one GXR model. GXR2, ok. If there is a GXR Mk II, let the hate flow.
D700 is not too bad. A55 just as ok. NEX-5N and C3 and 7, not quite as nice, but 5N and C3 works. The NEX-7 - well you can't refer to it just as the "7" except in small intimate NEX-7 groups, therefore the NEX-7 should and indeed does draw more hate... epic hate in fact, long before it even shipped!
On that note, I've made my point. Fujifilm - you brought this upon yourselves. Shame on you!
Camera makers - think hard about the short form name of your future models. Don't tempt the haters!
X-Pro 1 is the worst possible name ever, no doubt about it. Including the word "Pro" in the name gives the impression that the tool is not quite there or that the market/ user must be told. It cheapens the camera imo and sends the signal that it's not what it says - sort of like someone saying "honest, I'm not lying!" Automatically, the assumption is they are.
...or hinting at a camera aimed at ex-professionals...
Choosing a name like X-Pro 1 is awkward. The 1 might signal that it is the first, indicating more are to come. It might also indicate it is the No1 or top tier camera from the mfg implying it is the best.
Releasing a whole new system and naming the first and hopefully not last as the top tier / No 1 is a bit premature as it is probably going to be bettered by the next generation or model, rendering the One / #1 obsolete and being topped by ...the No 3?
Or is the X-Pro 1 going to be plagued by the MkII/III/IV upgrade dilemma?
Sadly I predict we'll see more X-Pro models. The X-Pro 1000. The X-Pro 2013.
Fujfilm could stop the madness simply by naming their penultimate "pro" line as model "X", since X mysteriously has come to mean eXciting and eXpensive and not just for Fujifilm.
The next revision after the X would of course be the XX.
And a third effort, the XXX.
I bet they have the bugs out by the time the XXX ships.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
X-Pro 1 is the worst possible name ever, no doubt about it. Including the word "Pro" in the name gives the impression that the tool is not quite there or that the market/ user must be told. It cheapens the camera imo and sends the signal that it's not what it says - sort of like someone saying "honest, I'm not lying!" Automatically, the assumption is they are.
In terms of recent camera names, my vote for worst would be Pentax for the *ist. WTH was that supposed to mean?
It's not like Fuji could call it the X1..., though that would have also confused the naming convention with the lesser X10 between it and the mid-market X100..
corposant wrote:
As bad as Fuji's branding is, I think "Zenzanon" is my personal favorite in the "what were they smoking" during their marketing meeting department!
Let's hope Fuji does not suffer the same fate as Bronica.
rscheffler wrote:
Definitely agree that these recent EVIL cameras are all close, but not quite what *I'm* looking for, including the XP1. As for it's image quality... Based on what's been available so far, I'd say it's on par with anything from the last year. The only difference between it and FF is the depth of field difference, and therefore that certain look to images achievable by larger formats vs. smaller ones.
That and the quality of lenses. The really high end lenses available (Leica, Zeiss..) all cover a FF image circle. On a cropper they lose a lot of their character and charm as you cut away the interesting stuff (vignetting, field curvature etc) going on at the edges. If some really high quality native ASP-C lenses would be produced then the DOF thing would be the only relevant advantage of using an FF camera.
My first serious camera was a 7D (1.6x cropper) and it could produce some very nice, high quality, realistic looking images. When I later got a 5DII I was really surprised by the difference - the 7D produced a good representation of reality while the 5DII produced something that looked better than reality so to say. The images had an "artistic" quality that the 7D images lacked. And suddenly the choice of lens became very relevant as they started to have a distinct individual signature.
I still use croppers on occasion - the 7D and a NEX-C3 (M-mount lenses) and I'm always disappointed by the results. Not because the image quality isn't good enough but because some of my favorite lenses that are just amazing on FF become bland and boring when you just crop the middle of the image circle.
denoir wrote:
That and the quality of lenses. The really high end lenses available (Leica, Zeiss..) all cover a FF image circle. On a cropper they lose a lot of their character and charm as you cut away the interesting stuff (vignetting, field curvature etc) going on at the edges. If some really high quality native ASP-C lenses would be produced then the DOF thing would be the only relevant advantage of using an FF camera.
My first serious camera was a 7D (1.6x cropper) and it could produce some very nice, high quality, realistic looking images. When I later got a 5DII I was really surprised by the difference - the 7D produced a good representation of reality while the 5DII produced something that looked better than reality so to say. The images had an "artistic" quality that the 7D images lacked. And suddenly the choice of lens became very relevant as they started to have a distinct individual signature.
I still use croppers on occasion - the 7D and a NEX-C3 (M-mount lenses) and I'm always disappointed by the results. Not because the image quality isn't good enough but because some of my favorite lenses that are just amazing on FF become bland and boring when you just crop the middle of the image circle....Show more →
Maybe this is an argument for the NEX-7, since it seems to add corner issues like vignetting and its AA and/or microlens setup seems to exaggerate field curvature with some lenses?
I don't know, I'm not sure I buy it. One of the few advantages of a smaller format is edge to edge performance with lenses designed for larger image circles. Had Zeiss ended up releasing the prohibitively expensive PC Apodistagon 3.5/25, which had a larger image circle than the 21/2.8, I'm sure people would be clamoring for it and not complaining that the corners were too good. With smaller sensors, you just need to cater your lens to the format. If I want corner to corner technical perfection, I can use the ZM 35/2 on the 5N, or, if I want more falloff towards the edges, I can use something like the Contax G 35.
If you expect your 135 lens lineup to perform the same on an aps-c sensor as it does on a 135 sensor, you're certainly in for a change, but, if you build a new lens line up that caters to the smaller format, you've got a lot of options.
denoir wrote:
That and the quality of lenses. The really high end lenses available (Leica, Zeiss..) all cover a FF image circle. On a cropper they lose a lot of their character and charm as you cut away the interesting stuff (vignetting, field curvature etc) going on at the edges. If some really high quality native ASP-C lenses would be produced then the DOF thing would be the only relevant advantage of using an FF camera.
My first serious camera was a 7D (1.6x cropper) and it could produce some very nice, high quality, realistic looking images. When I later got a 5DII I was really surprised by the difference - the 7D produced a good representation of reality while the 5DII produced something that looked better than reality so to say. The images had an "artistic" quality that the 7D images lacked. And suddenly the choice of lens became very relevant as they started to have a distinct individual signature.
I still use croppers on occasion - the 7D and a NEX-C3 (M-mount lenses) and I'm always disappointed by the results. Not because the image quality isn't good enough but because some of my favorite lenses that are just amazing on FF become bland and boring when you just crop the middle of the image circle....Show more →
i'm not really convinced about this. my most characterful lenses on FF (film) have the same basic character on aps-c (NEX) when viewed at say 8x10. sure there are differences at in corner softness viewing at 100% but it's not really noticeable in normal viewing. the NEX troubles with oblique rays may even make then more similar to FF performance . my c/y 35/1.4 seems to show similar astigmatism and bokeh funk in the corners on my NEX to what i see on FF corners (super weird). in any event i'd say the big difference using the same lens on FF and aps-c is that local problems like CA are magnified on the smaller sensors and, as you've pointed out, the equivalent mtfs are shifted down.
douglasf13 wrote:
Maybe this is an argument for the NEX-7, since it seems to add corner issues like vignetting and its AA and/or microlens setup seems to exaggerate field curvature with some lenses?
I don't know, I'm not sure I buy it. One of the few advantages of a smaller format is edge to edge performance with lenses designed for larger image circles. Had Zeiss ended up releasing the prohibitively expensive PC Apodistagon 3.5/25, which had a larger image circle than the 21/2.8, I'm sure people would be clamoring for it and not complaining that the corners were too good. With smaller sensors, you just need to cater your lens to the format. If I want corner to corner technical perfection, I can use the ZM 35/2 on the 5N, or, if I want more falloff towards the edges, I can use something like the Contax G 35.
If you expect your 135 lens lineup to perform the same on an aps-c sensor as it does on a 135 sensor, you're certainly in for a change, but, if you build a new lens line up that caters to the smaller format, you've got a lot of options. ...Show more →
You have to remember that the field curvature and vignetting is designed to be aesthetically pleasing on a FF camera. Letting the camera add it by random won't produce good results.
Then there's also the question of micro contrast. When you increase the pixel density you're demanding a higher spatial resolution and the result is a drop in the MTF. The lenses are designed to have a certain contrast at certain spatial frequencies - when you shift that, you get completely different results (poorer MTF).
It's the same thing when using medium format lenses adapted to FF.
Personally the change (for the worse) in the character of the lens annoys and disappoints me to such an extent that after I've done a shoot with a cropper, I won't touch it for quite a while. I'm simply appalled by how the camera butchers the results from an otherwise fantastic lens. So I don't use it until enough time has passed and I've forgotten how bad it was. Then I repeat the process.
There's an exception to that. The Leica X1. The lens however was designed for ASP-C and it's a great little lens. I've never been disappointed there. (Instead I get appalled by the awful performance of the camera (AF, LCD etc), but that's a different story).
Edit: The above sort of works as a reply to sebboh as well
I agree, I don't see the point of buying into a system just to use non-native lenses. Fortunately for the X-Pro1, I think Fuji did a pretty good job in selecting three useful primes to launch with. The rest of the roadmap looks pretty logical.
Sony, on the other hand, are for some reason making a 50mm E-Mount lens. I don't have any interest in a 75mm prime... Their lens selection consistently irks me.
Field curvature and vignetting are often just a by-product of size and cost constraints, not intentional design. Heck, even the M9 artificially corrects vignetting. As I mentioned, Zeiss designed that Apodistagon with a larger image circle, and it would have been a superior Zeiss wide angle, but it ended up being cost prohibitive. Sure, mtf of the smaller format is lower, but how big do you print? Either way, there are tons of aps-c designed lenses out there, and I've rarely preferred them over those designed for 135 when using an aps-c camera.
